The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FEBRUARY 20, 2008 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S AND MOTION FOR INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8 & 9 [Doc. No. 139.]
A district judge on timely objection by a party may modify or set aside a magistrate judge's nondispositive pretrial order if that order is "found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). The "clearly erroneous" standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual determinations and discretionary decisions, see Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990), including rulings on discovery disputes where the magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion. Cf. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) ("rulings concerning discovery are reviewed for abuse of discretion"); Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996).
On March 5, 2008, plaintiff Brighton Collectibles, Inc., filed objections to and moved for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's February 20, 2008 order denying motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 8 & 9, see Doc. No. 129. (Doc. No. 139.) Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's denial of Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant Marc Chantal America, Inc. ("Marc Chantal"), to provide telephone numbers and addresses for former Marc Chantal employees and sales representatives, who Marc Chantal identified as witnesses in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9. On March 10, 2008, the Court submitted the matter on the papers pursuant to its discretion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (Doc. No. 143.) Marc Chantal filed a response in opposition on March 17, 2008. (Doc. No. 144.)
After due consideration of the magistrate judge's order, the parties' briefs in connection with Plaintiff's motion to compel, and the briefs submitted by each party regarding the present motion, the Court concludes that no portion of the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous, contrary to law or an abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court declines to modify or set aside any portion of that order.
Additionally, the Court clarifies that the pretrial conference in this case is scheduled for Monday, April 28, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 13. (See Doc. No. 68.)
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...